Post navigation

This picture is superimposed over the now well-known ‘hockey stick’ graph showing temperature compared to CO2 concerntrations.

The hockey stick graph superimposed on the image here (here’s an original version of the chart) has been used by climatologists to underscore their claims that recent temperatures on earth are significantly higher than in past centuries. It’s among the most compeling arguments in support of global warming.

But it’s not without its detractors. Some have argued that the graph is faulty, phoney and misleading. Supporters of the research, in turn, have charged that those who are against it have been funded in part by oil compnies.

According to Michael Mann, one of the developers of the original research, “Ross Gelbspan—he’s a former editor of Boston Globe—has written two books on the connections between industry funding, in particular funding by ExxonMobil, and these climate contrarians. The vast majority of them appear to receive funding from industry sources.”

For background and to inform yourself on this debate, here are some sources for information on this debate:

In order for the hockey-stick to be correct, you have to ignore the Medieval Warming Period. Try looking into sun/cosmic ray cycles. Those seem to have an effect on cloud formation, which appears nowhere in climate research.

I’m actually very open to Dr. Svenmark’s ideas — however, I’m not ready to accept that man is having *no* impact and cosmic rays are everything.

From Dr. Svenmark’s Wikipedia entry: “In June 2007, the ideas of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen were challenged in a paper written by Mike Lockwood of the UK’s Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland which was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in June/July 2007.[2] Their study concluded that the link between increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere and global warming was substantially more significant than that between cosmic rays and global warming.”

Even Dr. Svenmark has stated he belives there is a link between CO2 and global warming (see my earlier post here.)

But thanks for reading and thanks for commenting. I appreciate your contributions and hope you stop by again.

i think this is a classic case
of advocates for change
allowing themselves to get bogged in the details
and losing sight of what’s important.

advocates of radical change see “the hockey stick”
and so see evidence that is
“among the most compeling arguments in support of global warming”.

some of us see problematic use of statistical analysis
but remain advocates for change
and so are stuck in the middle.

others have vested interests in avoiding change
and use these same reservations about statistical analysis
to insist that this “evidence” is “fake” or “misleading”.

advocates for change should not rise to this bait.
there is no reason to rise to this bait.
if those with conflicted interests
would rather side with oil profits
than the well being of their own children and grand children,
then let them do that.

if radical climate change on that scale is real,
other evidence will become available.

why allow ourselves to get bogged down in a pointless debate
about a single graph
with people who are never going to change their minds
not because they are too stupid to see the reality
but because the opinion is bought and paid for?

the problem is,
to “the masses” both sides are bought and paid for.
big oil on the one side
“radical environmentalism” on the other.
(aka Luddites who want us to live in caves and eat moss.)

you will not sway the masses by debating the details
wrapped around a single piece of evidence.

personally i think all of global warming is a red herring.
who cares if global warming is real or not?
shouldn’t we want to conserve and recycle and reuse
whether a fiery hell on earth awaits us or not?
shouldn’t we want to do these things
simply because it is -better- to do them then not to?

it sounds way too much like those christians
who get saved not because they want to be better people
but because they want to avoid an eternity in Hell.

i remember environmentalism from the 70′s and 80′s.
it wasn’t about global warming.
it wasn’t about debatable topics and statistics.
it was about the fact that pollution is ugly
and it makes people ill.
we’ve lost a lot of ground with global warming
with the general public
because global warming involves geology
and geology is the science of millenia
and most people are not willing to think in millenia.
it’s just too big.

and that’s the problem with this graph.
it is a graph of millenia,
and there simply isn’t reliable data that old to back it up
and there simply isn’t the patience and insight
on the part of most people to think on that scale.

let’s go back to the crying native american
who looks out at a spoiled wilderness
and convince people to stop pollution
(without all the complicit racism of course).